Russia-Ukrainian War

[Viking]

16 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

The globalists and the "war party" needs to address this very soon ... 

 

 

What a frightening video. What do we know with 100% certainty? Trump demands from his people loyalty to Trump above all else. So if relected what is job #1? To remake the US military in his image. To replace all the top leaders with people who put loyalty to Trump above the US Constitution, rule of law etc. Now where have we seen this playbook before?

 

He says he will end Ukraine war in 24 hours. Seriously? There are two ways to do this:

1.) throw Ukraine under the bus

2.) give Putin whatever he wants

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

4 minutes ago, Viking said:

1.) throw Ukraine under the bus

2.) give Putin whatever he wants

 

 

 

 

1.) throw Ukraine under the bus

2.) give Putin whatever he wants

3.)  1 + 2 = 3

 

I added a third one.

 

All about branding.

"I told you so ... they were going to f*er it up, and there we are " will be the cornerstone of his campaign

 

 

[cubsfan]

Yeah, the Obama and Biden administrations really did fuck this one up, along with 

the Europeans (France/Germany).  All of them let Putin cross the line - tried to appease him -

played the role of weak and pathetic pacifist with Obama's Nobel Prize. Putin instantly sensed

weakness - waited for his moment - and struck. 

 

Weak leaders never learn that there are always evil people in the world. 

 

All Obama and the Europeans had to do back in 2014 - was give Ukraine the ability (weapons)

to defend themselves. Huge strategic and glaring mistake.

 

Putin played them all like fools.  Now you have your disaster.

[Xerxes]

 

Good read on production rate, inventory etc 

[Blugolds11]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

What a frightening video. What do we know with 100% certainty? Trump demands from his people loyalty to Trump above all else. So if relected what is job #1? To remake the US military in his image. To replace all the top leaders with people who put loyalty to Trump above the US Constitution, rule of law etc. Now where have we seen this playbook before?

 

He says he will end Ukraine war in 24 hours. Seriously? There are two ways to do this:

1.) throw Ukraine under the bus

2.) give Putin whatever he wants

 

 

 

 

Amazing America has got to where it is without Trump all these years. Clearly the only way America will survive is if Trump is re-elected...and we cant afford to not have him in office ever again, perhaps its in the best interest of America to abolish the term restrictions for the presidency...so that we may benefit from his superior guidance and leadership for the rest of his life..hopefully he will also train his son in the ways as a future successor. 

 

Biden is a senile goof, plenty of issues there...Trump is the ultimate con-man. Amazing how he claims to be an expert in everything and the ONLY one with the right answers. 

 

Politicians are synonymous with empty promises..but Trumps MO is that the country is doomed without only HIM. The US has had a lot of bad leadership in its history, and it's still here, it will survive Biden, and it will be fine without Trump. Plenty of other options on either side of the aisle, no reason to go back to this Joker.

[no_free_lunch]

I would say both parties have a lot of blame here.  Many republicans are now full 1930s head in the sand isolationists which is a huge reversal.  However republicans are the ones traditionally backing and serving in the military so I don't know that the US would be able to give the defense transfers it does without their prior support.  Democrats are committed to defending Ukraine, mostly, but then their ESG and economic policies are at odds with fighting a sustained war with Russia.  It's bad either way.

Edited February 27, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Gamecock-YT]

Ignore it being Sky News but Michael Clarke has done an incredibly job analyzing the nuances of the war, did an hour long Q&A (just skip over anything that isn't him talking). Learning something new every time he speaks.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

@Gamecock-YT Yes, I watched this as well. Michael Clarke has been providing excellent analysis of this conflict and he really knows the details as well as the larger picture.

 

 

[cubsfan]

9 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

I would say both parties have a lot of blame here.  Many republicans are now full 1930s head in the sand isolationists which is a huge reversal.  However republicans are the ones traditionally backing and serving in the military so I don't know that the US would be able to give the defense transfers it does without their prior support.  Democrats are committed to defending Ukraine, mostly, but then their ESG and economic policies are at odds with fighting a sustained war with Russia.  It's bad either way.

 

Now it's a mess that has to be dealt with regardless of party. It could have been prevented by united allies of Europe & US. It's a huge failure of leadership.

 

But now, both are allied - which is a good thing. But they better stop pussyfooting around, piecemealing the support for Ukraine - or they're gonna lose it to Russia. Russia can outlast them in a war of attrition. The Ukrainians have proved they will fight bravely. The spring offensive from Russia is coming. Europe & US better get serious with the weapons - and stop bickering.

 

It should have never come to this.

[Ulti]

https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2023/02/23/data-from-satellites-reveal-the-vast-extent-of-fighting-in-ukraine

[Xerxes]

11 hours ago, Gamecock-YT said:

Ignore it being Sky News but Michael Clarke has done an incredibly job analyzing the nuances of the war, did an hour long Q&A (just skip over anything that isn't him talking). Learning something new every time he speaks.

 

 

no longer available. 
I even looked for it on YouTube 

[Xerxes]

Good interview w/o chest thumping.

It is really a geopolitical shitshow out there.  

 

 

[Xerxes]

Don’t watch “Under Siege” anymore !!

lol

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/02/27/europe/vladimir-putin-steven-seagal-award-intl-scli/index.html

Edited February 27, 2023 by Xerxes

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

no longer available. 
I even looked for it on YouTube 

Huh? I can clink on the link above and it's still there.

[cubsfan]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Good interview w/o chest thumping.

It is really a geopolitical shitshow out there.  

 

 

 

Pretty darn good interview. Thanks for posting. Expect the major spring offensive by Russia. The Western Allies better get their act together and get weapons/munitions flowing big time to Ukraine. If they don't - Ukraine will be a smoking pile of rubble. 

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

Pretty darn good interview. Thanks for posting. Expect the major spring offensive by Russia. The Western Allies better get their act together and get weapons/munitions flowing big time to Ukraine. If they don't - Ukraine will be a smoking pile of rubble. 

 

You are most welcome sir.

Cheers

 

 

[Xerxes]

4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Huh? I can clink on the link above and it's still there.

needs VPN.

Not available for Canadian. 
 

[no_free_lunch]

Some random notes from xerxes vid.

 

- Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014.  NATO as well.  This fed into Putins logic.

- failure of RU Intel pre invasion 

- half of RU  armor lost due to mechanical failure.  Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented"

- weak RU leadership constant

- RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine

- Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge

- Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders

- Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error.  However many variables. 

- Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force

- benefits of ukr foreign troops

- importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance

- Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics

- difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience 

- largest conflict for west since ww2

- new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc.  not playing as large a role as thought previously 

- still require conventional arms 

- conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here. 

-putin has no choice but a counter offensive.  Stalemate and casualties unacceptable. 

- likely more casualties to Ukraine to date

- strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU

- increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss

- Putin can't go backwards given these conditions 

- objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast.  Cut Ukraine from sea.

- possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant 

- Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses

- Russia boosting conventional munitions 

- likelihood of some Russia successes.  Possibly significant.

- putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad.  Will NATO respond?

- question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution."  He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent.  Undermines the west's authority.   

- Defeat here emboldens China.  If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan.

- Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well.

- comparison to 1930s appeasement 

- should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist

- his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders

- Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine 

 

That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching.

 

Cubsfan, I think the analyst in the interview broadly agrees with you. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Viking]

24 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

Some random notes from xerxes vid.

 

- Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014.  NATO as well.  This fed into Putins logic.

- failure of RU Intel pre invasion 

- half of RU  armor lost due to mechanical failure.  Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented"

- weak RU leadership constant

- RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine

- Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge

- Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders

- Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error.  However many variables. 

- Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force

- benefits of ukr foreign troops

- importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance

- Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics

- difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience 

- largest conflict for west since ww2

- new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc.  not playing as large a role as thought previously 

- still require conventional arms 

- conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here. 

-putin has no choice but a counter offensive.  Stalemate and casualties unacceptable. 

- likely more casualties to Ukraine to date

- strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU

- increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss

- Putin can't go backwards given these conditions 

- objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast.  Cut Ukraine from sea.

- possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant 

- Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses

- Russia boosting conventional munitions 

- likelihood of some Russia successes.  Possibly significant.

- putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad.  Will NATO respond?

- question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution."  He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent.  Undermines the west's authority.   

- Defeat here emboldens China.  If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan.

- Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well.

- comparison to 1930s appeasement 

- should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist

- his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders

- Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine 

 

That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching.

One of my key take-aways was the West cannot allow Putin to win in Ukraine as it will simply embolden Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc to take more (of whatever they want) knowing that the West has no spine (will fold like a tent at the first sign of trouble). Appeasement with characters like Putin and Xi never works.

[Spekulatius]

We will see but I think the Russian offensive will be a bust. They will likely make their advance in Donbas, because controlling the entire Donbas is Putins scaled back goal.

 

The reason why I think the offensive will be a bust is, because the added manpower from recruits are mostly useless in an offensive. They are mostly just meatshields to plug holes in the front line, but in an offensive, they will mostly just take huge losses with little gain, similar to what happens now in Bakhmut.

 

Mike Clarke said that if an Ukraine has two functional tank brigades and supporting armored infantery support, they likely can do some nice offensive things with it. Think maneuver warfare and a pincer movement, cut the landbridge while the russian are busy elsewhere etc , that sort of thing.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Spekulatius

[cubsfan]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

We will see but I think the Russian offensive will be a bust. They will likely make their advance in Donbas, because controlling the entire Donbas is Putins scaled back goal.

 

The reason why I think the offensive will be a bust is, because the added manpower from recruits are mostly useless in an offensive. They are mostly just meatshields to plug holes in the front line, but in an offensive, they will mostly just take huge losses with little gain, similar to what happens now in Bakhmut.

 

Mike Clarke said that if an Ukraine has two functional tank brigades and supporting armored infantery support, they likely can do some nice offensive things with it. Think maneuver warfare and a pincer movement, cut the landbridge while the russian are busy elsewhere etc , that sort of thing.

 

^^^ Yeah, that may be - but why take any chances at all. What you do know is that Russia is full of surprises and stacked with manpower (however inept). The eastern part of Ukraine is effectively destroyed. And of course your big, big problem is the West or Ukrainians cannot take out the productive capacity of the Russians EVER. How likely is the West to actually go into Russia and destroy their munitions works, etc?  Therefore, the war of attrition will continue, with Putin trying to outlast the Western Allies until they cut and run (like Afghanistan).

[Spekulatius]

@cubsfan No I would not take any chance. I am all for giving tanks, fighter planes , drones , long range weapons.

 

Basically, the russian  strategy will be to get into close combat range with the Ukrainian army to inflict losses in them. It’s what they are doing in Bahkmut and is essentially the German strategy in WW1 Verdun. The counter should be to give the Ukrainians the tools to keep the  Russians arms length with longer range weapons (like HIMARS destroyed the Russian artillery and logistics in summer last year), just more of it - smart ammo, more HIMARS, drones, possibly fighter planes . They need weapons to hit the entire land bridge in depth including all of Crimea  ( a staging ground for the Russians)- Then tank and armored divisions to do a Guderian style pincer movement swiftly in a weak spot after their logistic network had been destroyed locally and cut through the land bridge and isolate a huge part of the Russian fighting force and destroy them.

 

This probably not going to happen, but this is a scenario where Putin loses the war.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Spekulatius

[cubsfan]

^^^ I sincerely hope you are right, but we better get moving and stop bickering about who is giving what weapons. Tough talk and no action has always been a Biden hallmark.

 

Taking back Crimea and/or the Eastern Ukraine is going to be hell on earth when you can not eliminate the Russians capacity to produce armaments. Putin can go on forever while we fight amongst ourselves.

[cubsfan]

11 hours ago, Viking said:

One of my key take-aways was the West cannot allow Putin to win in Ukraine as it will simply embolden Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc to take more (of whatever they want) knowing that the West has no spine (will fold like a tent at the first sign of trouble). Appeasement with characters like Putin and Xi never works.

 

@VikingI think this is largely correct and underscores the importance of Ukraine, which seems like a nothing country, irrelevant to US/Europe interests.

 

It's unfortunate that this tragedy has largely brought the US & Europe much closer together.  When you are led by pacifist leaders - you have to learn the hard way unfortunately. Currently, support against Russia is galvanizing - just not quickly enough. Still too much tough talk. 

 

But it appears the European support against President Xi is finally there: his support of Russia is scaring the Europeans shitless. The Europeans that love trade - and never want to disrupt commerce - are finally coming down on the existential threat of both China and Russia - and are forced to face the issue of what matters for the LONG term. It did not help that a weak US President sided with Europe from 2008 to 2014.

 

You can hate Trump all you like - just don't forget his final words in the short video you posted:

 

"Peace through Strength"

 

It really does mean something.

Edited February 28, 2023 by cubsfan

[ValueArb]

On 2/27/2023 at 7:56 PM, no_free_lunch said:

Some random notes from xerxes vid.

 

- Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014.  NATO as well.  This fed into Putins logic.

- failure of RU Intel pre invasion 

- half of RU  armor lost due to mechanical failure.  Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented"

- weak RU leadership constant

- RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine

- Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge

- Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders

- Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error.  However many variables. 

- Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force

- benefits of ukr foreign troops

- importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance

- Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics

- difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience 

- largest conflict for west since ww2

- new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc.  not playing as large a role as thought previously 

- still require conventional arms 

- conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here. 

-putin has no choice but a counter offensive.  Stalemate and casualties unacceptable. 

- likely more casualties to Ukraine to date

- strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU

- increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss

- Putin can't go backwards given these conditions 

- objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast.  Cut Ukraine from sea.

- possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant 

- Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses

- Russia boosting conventional munitions 

- likelihood of some Russia successes.  Possibly significant.

- putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad.  Will NATO respond?

- question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution."  He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent.  Undermines the west's authority.   

- Defeat here emboldens China.  If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan.

- Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well.

- comparison to 1930s appeasement 

- should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist

- his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders

- Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine 

 

That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching.

 

Cubsfan, I think the analyst in the interview broadly agrees with you. 

 

This is no different than the pronouncement that the war would last 4 days or 2 months last year. We've been waiting for the real Russian army to show up the entire war and it looks more and more likely that it no longer exists.

 

I find it obvious Russia will boost manpower, I find it very hard to imagine how they are going to boost conventional munitions of any sophistication. They can't rebuild their tank force, the tanks still in storage are the worst of the worst and likely stripped by the Kleptocrats. They can't build advanced weapons without access to western technology. 

 

Unless we fail to supply Ukraine with enough munitions, they'll continue to relentlessly attrite the Russian forces. Soon with  Bradleys (and Leopards) they'll dominate the remaining Russian armor. They are just receiving ER GMLRS and GLSDB can reach out nearly 100 miles and hit precise targets, forcing Russians to move their ammo and headquarters (again) even farther away from the battlefield and accentuating their issues with supplying front line troops.

 

Lastly, the Ukrainians are smart with modern military leadership that gives individual units initiative and they desperately want to win. The Russians are trapped in a Stalinesque top down command system, and their troops are just trying to balance between dying on suicidal wave assaults and being shot by their own officers.